Cadle Co. v. Ogalin
167 A.3d 402
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Cadle Company, assignee of a 1994 money judgment against Ogalin for $137,055.17, sued in 2013 to enforce that judgment and sought postjudgment interest.
- Complaint pleaded two counts (action on judgment and unjust enrichment); Cadle later withdrew count two.
- Ogalin answered and raised three special defenses to count one: failure to state a claim, that a second action was duplicative/vexatious because active 2013 collection proceedings existed, and laches based on alleged 18+ year delay.
- Trial court struck the first and second special defenses, denied strike as to laches, later granted Cadle summary judgment on count one, and awarded postjudgment interest at the statutory rate.
- Ogalin appealed, arguing (1) improper striking of second special defense, (2) improper summary judgment because laches raised genuine issues, and (3) error in awarding postjudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike second special defense (duplicative/vexatious) | Special defense legally insufficient; action on a judgment is permissible where nonpayment is alleged | The 2013 active collection proceedings made a second action duplicative, vexatious and oppressive | Strike affirmed: allegation of nonpayment supports action; defendant offered no authority that pending collection proceedings bar a new action |
| Applicability of laches to action at law | Laches inapplicable to a timely action for monetary damages under statute §52-598 | Laches bars enforcement after long delay and prejudiced defendant | Summary judgment affirmed: laches is equitable and not applied to an action at law brought within statutory period; no factual showing of prejudice |
| Entitlement to postjudgment interest | Postjudgment interest is mandatory under §37-1 and Sikorsky when interest eo nomine applies | 1994 judgment did not award postjudgment interest; thus res judicata bars interest now | Award affirmed: plaintiff did not plead res judicata; issue not preserved for appeal; statutory/precedential rule requires postjudgment interest where applicable |
| Preservation of res judicata defense | N/A | Res judicata precludes awarding postjudgment interest because original judgment omitted it | Not considered on appeal — defendant waived by not pleading or arguing below |
Key Cases Cited
- Garguilo v. Moore, 156 Conn. 359 (discusses that allegation of nonpayment justifies an action on a judgment)
- Sikorsky Financial Credit Union, Inc. v. Butts, 315 Conn. 433 (postmaturity interest under §37-1 accrues at legal rate and includes postjudgment interest for loans)
- Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 317 Conn. 357 (laches is an equitable doctrine not generally applied to timely actions at law)
- Investment Associates v. Summit Associates, Inc., 309 Conn. 840 (statutory time limits for executing or enforcing judgments)
- Carlson v. Waterbury Hospital, 280 Conn. 125 (rule against double recovery/single satisfaction for same loss)